Synergies and Conflicts Between Water Framework Directive and Natura 2000: Legal Requirements, Technical Guidance and Experiences from Practice - Wetlands and Water Framework Directive: Protection, Management and Climate Change - page 18

It can be argued that the achievement of the good ecological status of a water body is
infeasible, if it requires construction works in the river bed or in the flood plains

which would destroy or deteriorate the conservation status of a Natura 2000 site.
However, in such cases the Member States have to ensure that the targeted envi-
ronmental needs (i.e. the maintenance of the Natura 2000 site) cannot be achieved by
other means, which are a signi

fl

cantly better environmental option. Furthermore, the
least possible changes to the water status have to be achieved, no further deterio-
ration must occur in the status of the affected water body and the establishment of
less stringent environmental objectives, and the reasons for it, have to be speci

cally
mentioned in the river basin management plan and those objectives have to be
reviewed every 6 years (Art. 4 para. 5 WFD).
To sum up it can be stated that both the HD and the WFD contain appropriate
legal instruments and suf

find environmentally sound
decisions in the individual case, considering both the objectives of the WFD and
Natura 2000. Water and nature conservation authorities should cooperate in elab-
orating these decisions and should justify them carefully.

cient discretionary leeway to

2.3.2 Guidance from the European Commission

The problem of how to implement the objectives of the WFD in Natura 2000 sites
also drew the attention of the European Commission (DG Environment) and guid-
ance is provided through some documents. First notes for an integrated imple-
mentation of the goals of Natura 2000 and WFD were formulated already in the CIS
guidance document N

° 12 (EC 2003b ). Based on the first experiences with synergies

and con first planning phase, open questions were taken up and more

detailed advice for the following planning phases were given (EC DG-Env 2010a , b ,
2011 ).
Except for the more general reference to the two conservation-oriented Directives
there is no direct link to Natura 2000 sites in WFD Annex VI, and of how to deal in
speci

fl icts within the

c situations. It was realised that the ecological conditions of wetlands across
Europe are so highly diverse that a management principle of ' one size fits all ' does

not consider speci cs of national importance, and e.g. the consideration of envi-

ronmental fl flow was to be worked out as a CIS Guidance document N ° 12 (EC

2003b , speci first step, this guidance provides criteria which

types of wetlands covering Natura 2000 habitats and species are quali

cally Chap. 5 ) . As a

ed under the
WFD, which are habitats directly depending on the status of water (Table 8 in the
cited document). In the same chapter taking account of these types of wetlands is
requested as an essential part of river basin management plans (RBMP). Basic
advice for dealing with spatially overlapping aims of the WFD and of Natura 2000
wetlands are given. It is stated, that

“ ”

. Fur-
thermore the importance of RBMPs for improving the ecological coherence of the
Natura 2000 network is highlighted. Rivers with their banks are named as essential
structures as well as ponds functioning as stepping stones (cf. Art. 10 HD).

the most stringent objective will apply